Shouldn't we be warned about the massive nudity? - A Room with a View (1986) Discussion

[–] fico_of_arboria 20 years ago

It isn't really gratuitous. It is necessary for the joke (Lucy, Cecil and her mother's reactions). I haven't a problem with it, and have watched it with members of my family of both genders, aged 8 to 90, and nobody was anyhting but delightfully amused by the scene. Its important to remember that (regardless of the book and EM Forster's original premise) the scene is superficially innocent. I admit that I'm not familiar with US clasification, and concede that a "contains some nudity," or an equivalent, is perhaps warranted, but nobody I know is offended, horrified or embarrased by the scene.

reply

[–] smarr 20 years ago

Sorry, but are you a complete and utter moron?

First off, films that are not rated are most likely to be filled with hard-core sex - not innocent family entertainments. ("Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "Young Adam" come to mind.)

Your ignorance of such a concept is almost as precious as your notion and indignation about "art films." "A Room With a View" is hardly an art film - it is a lavishly produced adaptation of an E.M. Forster novel - it's not Warhol's "Blowjob." It might not warrant five screens at your local mutliplex, but that hardly classifies it as edgy, arty or scandalous in any sense. It was a modest hit and was nominated for a slew of Oscars, so again, pretty mainstream.

But what's most risible is your excessive prurience and shock over some skinny-dipping. This IS a film that is acceptable for children to watch! There is one scene of violence that is meant to upset not amuse us, there's no sex, no cursing and everyone wears clothes that cover them from ankle to collarbone with the one exception of having an innocent swim.

Keep in mind that basically everyone else in the world besides Americans and Victorians would find nothing horrifying or shocking about a little non-sexual naked romping. And it's hardly "massive nudity." It's one scene.

And what is it you might be protecting your children's innocent eyes from? If they are boys, surely then you hope they'll make it to adulthood, at which point they'll have penises and pudenda of their very own to look at in the mirror. And if they might be girls, I'm sure you'll hope they're heterosexual and happily married in which case they'll have a husband with a penis. (Presumably.) What about seeing a naked man could warp, destroy or upset them?

The film is presumably not rated since the makers did not bother to submit it for such consideration. Why? Probably because the MPAA would have freaked out and made them cut the nude bathing when the content of the film, aside from some genitalia swaying in the breeze, warrants at most a PG rating. So perhaps they preferred keeping their film intact, or perhaps worried that an R rating would cut down on ticket sales and profits. Being a foreign production, perhaps they didn't care.

But, really, I'm sure that none of their reasons included "snobbish elitism" (when laughs from nudity is about as base as a joke can get outside of excrement) and certainly not the intention to shock prim viewers like you with the cruel revelation that people don't always wear clothes.

reply

[–] contact-258 20 years ago

I did have a chuckle over your comments. Perhaps you have a few valid points, like this is NOT an art film. Perhaps you're right. So if it is a mainstream commercial film, as opposed to an art film (Does a film have to have a title like "Blowjob" to be an art film?), then my point that we should have been forewarned about the flopping five minute penis scene is even stronger.

On another point though, I was trying to imagine grown adult men getting naked and playing with each other in the outdoors. The mere thought of such a scene (outside of homosexual circles) is ludricous. Maybe this is typical in your highly enlightened world, but not here in the US of A!!! If those guys started taking their clothes off, I would be running the opposite direction 110 miles per.

We would know that Bush was a Christian if he had read Matthew 5:9. It's obvious that he has not.

reply

[–] fico_of_arboria 20 years ago

Sports teams in the UK regularly shower or bathe together in a confined area (as do the rest of the world, I gather). I doubt you'd call many of those homosexual. Not trying to be Freudian, but why are you so disturbed by nudity? Being comfortabe with the nudity of another person does not mean that you are sexually attracted to them. My mates and I have skinny dipped together. Picture the scene: you're on a long walk, the weather is hot and you find yourself near a lake. Oh, hang on, we haven't got our bathers, so we'd better not go for a swim...

reply

[–] smarr 20 years ago

Well, that's how people had a swim before Lycra was invented. Easier than taking a dip in cotton pantaloons.

And engaging in publicly nude activities is not so bizarre. Sure, there's nudist camp volleyball, which surely is strange and unpleasant for the spectator. But spend 30 seconds in a sauna and you'll know there's no reason to wear anything at all. Coworkers, inlaws, families - they all take a nice nude sauna together and they ain't gay or crazy or lascivious. Just Finnish.

reply

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

I would think that the nude volleyball would be uncomfortable for the players, especially well endowed women.

As to your sauna example, in Japan there are bath houses (which aren't anything like what most Americans think they are). They are separated by gender and the first thing one does is undress, shower and shave... then choose from a number of different temperature (hot, warm, cold) baths, hot or cold mist, etc. Eventually there is a room to relax and have a cup of tea and then a very nice massage... all while completely nude with friends and strangers.

reply

[–] kak122760 19 years ago

You were around 100 years ago when this story took place to know exactly what grown men did? If you don't think men didn't bath nude before bathing suits, before all houses had indoor plumbing than you are deluding yourself. I will assume you are a woman and aren't aware of some of the nude roughhousing that goes on in locker rooms in the good old U S of A.

Plus, this was given an R rating upon release in this country, and probably for no other reason than of the male nudity. Had it been female it probably would have been PG-13.

reply

[–] WeRNotAfraid 14 years ago

Oh, where to start with this. There is nothing gay about nudity. Ever known anybody in the military? Every known a male at ALL? At some point in people's lived, I guarantee they've been nude around another person in a non-sexual manner. Whether it be group showers, changing rooms, etc it's just going to happen.

Only in backwards, guns-and-Jesus hick circles is the idea that nudity is a shameful secret prevalent. It's no wonder so much of the US is a joke to the rest of the world, since they're afraid of a penis. "Enlightened" indeed.

reply

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] boxerrebellion 8 years ago

Nothing about the nudity was 'massive'.

reply

[–] jayman53 20 years ago

hey Smarr, I don't think you understand what an art film is. Just because it gets oscar nominations and is a moderate hit by no means implies that it is not an art film. First of all "Art Film" is subjective, second of all wheather or not it is considered an art film is decided by the intentions of the Director. 2001: A space odessey, or most of Stanley K.'s films were moderate hits, and I think that some could say quite easily that most of his films were art films. But then again, thats subjective.

reply

[–] smarr 20 years ago

Hey jayman53, it doesn't have to be "Sleep." But by that standard, "A Room With A View" still isn't an art film. It's deliciously bourgeois and tasteful and was made with every intention of profiting. I myself probably would classify most of Kubrick as an "art film" because he obviously didn't care much what a producer or his audience thought. He was making his films his way.

And I DO think getting an Oscar nomination for Best Picture absolutely precludes something from being an art film. An art film basically implies some kind of non-traditional narrative, subversive material, alienating techniques, etc. "Midnight Cowboy" was daring. "Lost In Translation" was unique. But they aren't art films either.

It doesn't just mean something made for a modest budget, in a foreign language or for a mature targeted demographic. Which is why it's a pretty useless classification, "art film."

reply

[–] Wrongolini 19 years ago

"Blowjob" ruled.

reply

[–] BorovnianHeir 19 years ago

Quote from Smarr: "And what is it you might be protecting your children's innocent eyes from? If they are boys, surely then you hope they'll make it to adulthood, at which point they'll have penises and pudenda of their very own to look at in the mirror."

Couldn't let this go by... surely those little boys have penises already (albeit tiny ones)?

"Shocks are so much better absorbed with the knees bent."
~ Lord Summerisle

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] luis1210 20 years ago

Oh Lord people shouldn't be nude never, let's take baths with bathing suits...

reply

[–] contact-258 20 years ago

Are you inferring that you don't wear a bathing suit when you bathe? I think I'm gonna be sick.

We would know that Bush was a Christian if he had read Matthew 5:9. It's obvious from his wars that he has not.

reply

[–] AND77 20 years ago

Not rated?
In my town, it was rated R when it was released in theaters. That's a pretty good indication that there's going to be something inappropriate for children to see.
And, don't get me wrong, this film is one of my favorites, but had I been shown this movie as a child, I would have fallen asleep long before the nude scene occurs.

reply

[–] hold_your_breath 19 years ago

Quote: "Are you inferring that you don't wear a bathing suit when you bathe? I think I'm gonna be sick."

Wait, have you been sarcastic from the beginning? Your comments from the get-go were completely ridiculous. You're either an idiot or a sarcastic guy who's trying to make Americans look bad. In fact, there has already been one English person who has been frequenting these forums, trying to make Americans look bourgeois and stupid and moralistic.

Please stop.

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

I have to say that, altho I can be a bit tongue in cheek at times (I sometimes may even go over the top just to get a reaction (and apologize profusely now)!!), I am serious about the basic premise. The copy of the film I got stated it was not rated (Are most copies of the film out there rated?). It is a fairly well known and highly praised film. We could have easily had our children with us when we viewed it. We had no warning that there was a lot of male nudity in the one long scene. I think we should be warned so that we, as parents, can decide for ourselves whether our young children should view the nudity. That's my main point and nothing stated so far has changed my mind thereon. I do appreciate your thought and input.

We would know that Bush was a Christian if he had read Matthew 5:9. It's obvious from the wars he starts that he has not.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] WeRNotAfraid 14 years ago

Why not just lock your children up in a room with no TV or books (that is, if you haven't already.) After all, in the horrible, mean, real world they might see *gasp* a NAKED MAN! Or a boob. Or an old statue of a nude. Can't have that, can we?

reply

[–] GoodSOVeryVeryGood 13 years ago

The nudity won't kill them ... your neuroticism over it though will mark them for life ...

reply

[–] Dith_Pran 17 years ago

Wow, there's a lot of people getting hot and bothered here over a few willies.

reply

[–] aksooted 19 years ago

I didn't get worked up over it, I figured it was pretty innocent and didn't want to be a Yank prude about it.

But, the follow-up to this movie was 'Maurice'. Draw your own conclusions :p

reply

[–] philip_vanderveken 19 years ago

Contact-258, I don't know how old your children are of course, but don't you think that you are over-exagerating a bit. I mean, they will find out what sex is sooner or later and if it isn't in a movie that they see nudity for the first time, than it will be on the internet or when they are with some friends. Experimenting is of all ages and you can't keep an eye on your children all the time. You should know this or have you never been young then?

Don't you think that sex and nudity are only more attractive when they are "forbidden" by the parents? My parents were very open about it all and somehow they were still able to let me and my brother grow up like two normal young men. I'm certainly no pervert who has nothing else on his mind but sex. And I'm not saying that you should show them hardcore porn movies, but what's wrong with what mother nature has given us from the start on. We were all nude when we arrived and we are all nude when we are making children... This is the 21st century, but somehow I've got the feeling that it is worse than in Victorian times.

By the way, if you should ask yourself: yes I'm from the "extremely liberal" old continent. I'm European, but I can assure you that it is save to pay us a visit whenever you want to. You won't see any nude people walking by on the streets, we've got special places for that... :-)

--------------
I saw my whole life flash before my eyes! ...It was boring! (Chicken Run)

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

Okay. I'll bite. Are you taking the position that parents should not be allowed to decide what degree of nudity/sexuality is appropriate for their small children to view? and am I the only one with the view that they should be so allowed?

And don't get me wrong. I love Europe. Altho I'm not sure Europe can be called "extremely liberal" (why the quotation marks Philip?) when, despite overwhelming popular disapproval by the people, most countries have supported, in one form or another, Bush's War in/on Iraq. Why do Europeans allow their governments to be bullied/bribed by Bush to go to war? The whole thing smells of corruption from here! If the Europeans ended their support of the war, the sooner we could withdraw our children from the death zone of Iraq. Come on mates, save America from Bush!!

reply

[–] fico_of_arboria 19 years ago

I have strong views on the war and Bush, but this isn't the board on which to air them. I really can't see why you have digressed on to such a topic, and am thoroughly vexed that you would use A Room With A View's board in such a way.

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

We must fight evil in any way we can. This is one way. Bush's war based on faked evidence and lies, his torturers and murderers in prison, and his Gulag prison are evidence of evil. Where in the bible does Jesus say, "Bring it on"?

We would know that Bush was a Christian if he had read Matthew 5:9. It's obvious from the wars that he starts that he has not.

reply

[–] fico_of_arboria 19 years ago

Apparently you need reminding: this board is for A Room With A View, an Merchant Ivory adaptation of the bok by EM Forster.

reply

[–] philip_vanderveken 19 years ago

Well, Contact. First of all I'm not saying that parents shouldn't be allowed to decide what degree of nudity or sexuality is appropriate for their children and what degree is not. As I said in my earlier message, I'm certainly not saying that it is OK to show them hardcore porn movies, but how can you possibly compare the few nude scenes in this movie with porno? I'm just saying that you are a bit too narrow-minded about it all, not that you haven't got the right to keep your children away from it. But isn't it a fact that it is most of the time the American parents who have a huge fixation on prohibiting everything that could be a hint of profanities or sexuality? Why do you think that we don't have little stickers with "Parental Warning, explicit lyrics" on our music CD's or DVD's? Why do you think that over here we do have a rating system for movies but don't really use it like you guys do? Only when a movie is considered as 18+ and they aren't too sure about your age, they will ask your pasport (and by the way: that's fine by me!). We just don't take it all that serious as you guys do...

And I'm not defending this movie because it is an "art film". I don't even consider this movie to be one of those movies and I'm sure that not many people do. It's not because they wear some victorian costumes, that the movie is art. If you want to see a real 'art movie', then I suggest you watch 'Lucia y el Sexo'. That's much more of a real art movie than 'A Room with a View' will ever be and yes, there is sex in it as well. But on the other hand, if you already were offended by 'A Room with a View', then I guess it would be better if you didn't give it a try. I like your comments too much to see you die of a heart attack! (I suggest you try to find and read my review instead, then you'll also see how I really think about sex in a movie).

Finally I would also like to reply on your 'attack' on Europe considering the war in Iraq, but first of all I would like to say that I normally don't talk about politics on the internet and certainly not on this website, since most movies and especially this one don't have anything to do with it. I consider politics as a personal question which we all have to answer for ourselves. I've got my own opinion about people who vote for Bush and I'm pretty sure that you would like it, but I've got one about those who vote for other parties as well (in Europe as well as in the USA). And by the way, I'm Belgian! Should I say more? I hope not, you seem like someone who knows pretty well what is going on in the world. But for the other readers who perhaps don't know it, I would like to add that Belgium, even though we are one of the smallest countries in Europe with only 10 million inhabitants, didn't fear the big bully. Belgium was one of the few countries that openly questioned the Bush administration on the war in Iraq and always refused to send troops or to support them in any other way. And it's true that many European governments supported Bush, but saying that all Europeans did wouldn't be correct. Even in the countries that did support Bush, the people didn't always agree. Take for instance Italy where, even though Berlusconi and his government supported Bush, the ordinary Italians didn't. This also brings me to the question: How would you feel if I said that politics in the USA and Columbia are one and the same since they both are situated on the big pan-continent of America...(my apologies to all the Columbian readers, I didn't mean to offend you...)

PS, the quotations on 'extremely liberal' in my earlier comment were intended to suggest that, despite the fact that many conservative Americans consider Europe as such, we really are not. Sure, over here in Belgium we are allowed to do an abortion or to have euthanasia done on ourselves. And even when you are gay you can marry. But don't worry if you haven't that special someone yet (same or opposite sexe) and you do have certain needs. You can always go to a prostitute without being arrested. And oh, before I forget, in Holland they even allow the use of drugs... How much closer than that can you get to worshipping the devil???? But you know what? All those things aren't seen as the work of weirdo's or crazy people over here. These things are seen as normal rights.

By the way, did you actually know that the Democrats, which are considered as left on the political spectrum in the USA, would be seen as right over here? And did you know that the people that WE consider to be left wing, would actually be seen as communists in the USA, even though they are not? Just think about that. Calling yourself left or right is only a matter of perception...

--------------
I saw my whole life flash before my eyes! ...It was boring! (Chicken Run)

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

Thanks for the great comments, Philip! I think we pretty much beat the nudity issue to death. I think we'll just have to accept that we have different views thereon. Being considered a prude is a good thing in my book! I did notice that according to IMDB, this movie is unrated, which makes me wonder how a previous poster came across one that was rated R. And to reiterate, I would not have had a problem with the scene in question if we had known it was coming.

Here here for the Belgians! Thank you for not being bullied or bribed to support the war lover (Mr. "Daddy got a war, and I want one too. If I don't get one, I'm going to cry!"). The reason I stated that all countries have indicated support for Bush in his Iraqi war is that even the French [which are considered to be next to flesh-eating devil worshippers by Republicans over here] indicated that they would help train Iraqi troops. So I generalized and figured that if even the French were helping Bush in some token ways, all nations had been coopted in one way or another.

Well, the Republicans and even most Democrats laughed at us when we opposed invading Iraq on the premise that we didn't need to create an army of Osama bin Ladens in Iraq. I was shocked that this country forgot the lessons of Vietnam in less than 30 years. I figured that it would take at least 50 years! Well, all I can do over here is protest the stupidity of the war and wait for a whole new generation of Americans to learn the lessons of Vietnam/Iraq.

Your comments on left and right are interesting. I myself don't seem to fit in any party over here. I can say thqt I have yet to vote for the Presidential candidate that actually got the most votes. I consider myself a strong Christian, but Bush is the most hypocritical anti-Christian I know of. The crying shame is Americans don't see how hypocritical he is.

Is Europe drifting to the right like the USA has been drifting the last 25 years?

reply

[–] mom_o_7 19 years ago

just a quick note... Contact258. It seemed that you were way out numbered here but just to let you know your post here helped me to decide on whether I even wanted to purchase this movie... I am not. No we can't be there 24/7 with our children but they do watch us parents. What the parents allow in moderation the children can allow in excess with excuse. I didn't mean to beat the nudity issue again, I just wished you to know that your post was read by someone who may hold some of the same views as you, conserning the wishes to make informed decisions.

Thanks, from a mom of 7

reply

[–] repete66211 18 years ago

philip_vanderveken,

You are all making sound arguments and I agree with what it is you're saying. However, your comment, "I'm European, but I can assure you that it is save to pay us a visit whenever you want to. You won't see any nude people walking by on the streets, we've got special places for that... :-)" prompts me to comment.

I paid your fine continent a visit about five years ago. I had a fantastic time in Amsterdam, Berlin and Paris. (Europeans: thanks for having me!) When waiting for the bus to Schiphol on my last day in Europe, a woman--completely nude--walked by me on the sidewalk. Some of the native pedestrians were snickering (mainly the construction workers), but for the most part no one paid much attention. It made me chuckle a bit myself, but what made me enjoy the experience wasn't for the prurience of the situation but how surreal it seemed. A completely nude woman walking down a busy street in broad daylight. I saw it as a cultural experience and value it as such.

I still don't know if she was mentally ill, a performance artist or perhaps I was on some candid camera show, but it gave me a great story to tell.

reply

[–] felsner 19 years ago

First of all, I cannot understand why you would show this film to children. Do you imagine that a coming-of-age tale mixed with British manners and mores around the early 20th century would appeal to an eight-year old?

Secondly, what's wrong with nudity of the kind we see in this film? There are absolutely no sexual implications in this hilarious scene. In fact, what’s with the fuss about nudity per se? Remember how we are born?

I imagine that your favorite character in the beautiful filmic interpretation of the novel must be Mr. Vyse - whose narrow sightedness and bigotry you appear to share.

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

Well she was so hot I had to go change underwear after her screen appearance. My head swims when I think about her tight body in that sheer lingerie.

reply

[–] Koteas1 19 years ago

What in heaven's name is wrong with children watching nudity? It's natural. I grew up seeing a lot of nudity and i'm not deranged or anything else.

You know what children SHOULDN'T see? Pictures on the first pages of newspapers depicting people in pain, bloody and dying. What they shouldn't see is the snuff they show on the news throughout the day. The REAL LIFE VIOLENCE. I do think that that is more shocking for small children than nudity, which is natural and the only thing bad about it is that narrow minded people like YOU keep your kids from seeing it. So many people that I knew also grew up seeing nudity (not porn, just nudity) and they're all very well adjusted people. And are you saying that nudists shouldn't have kids? Oh go to hell you idiot.

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

Hell yeah; let's crank up Porky's for the Kidnergarteners to watch!!

We would know that Bush was a Christian if he had read Matthew 5:9. It's obvious that he has not.

reply

[–] AND77 19 years ago

Whatever.
I can only speak for myself as a child, but had I happened to be in the room during this scene when I was, say, 6 years old (I am a girl, by the way), I would have though, "Yeah, it's a bunch of men taking a bath. Who cares?" I wouldn't have run, scared, to my mom. I wouldn't have equated that scene with sex in any way (as I still don't - none of the characters are gay, they're just MEN TAKING A BATH) because I didn't know what sex was. I took baths with a male cousin until we were 4 or so. We still laugh about it - unlike adults, children don't automatically apply a disgusting meaning to something that is clearly very innocent.
If I HAD gone running to my mother, she would have watched the scene and calmly explained that, in the old days, people bathed outside in lakes and ponds, and that these men (2 of whom are barely out of boyhood) were splashing around, having fun and being silly, just like when the 6-year-old me splashed around and acted silly in the bathtub.
There is nothing wrong with children catching a glimpse of innocent nudity. If you seriously think that a child viewing the movie Porky's, with its gratuitous nudity and gross objectification of women, is somehow on the same level as A Room With a View (which, as I stated in a post before, would bore a child to tears LONG before the nude scene came around), you are deluding yourself.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] cecile_p 19 years ago

Well goodboymatt50, believe it. I (female) went to this movie with a date who had already seen the movie. Can you believe that he tried to cover my eyes during this scene? He only stopped because when he reached over, he knocked over my popcorn and it flew all over the people in front of us who told him to cut it out. When I saw what he was trying to "protect" me from...sheesh! All that fuss over a scene like that?!!

reply

[–] lolaphilologist 19 years ago

Do you prohibit your children from going to museums as well? I mean, there aren't fig leaves everywhere on all the statues. You must be freaking out all the time in places where statues show a little nudity.

And, yes...NR means you might see some full frontal. You just don't understand the rating system. NR is a rating of sorts. I always found it ridiculous that the movie is classified as NR and not R in the US. What's so threatening about some calm floppy penis? If there was an erection involved that would be a little less insane, but as it is, the scene is charming and completely harmless unless you're utterly Victorian, that is to say filthy-minded and hypocritical. Who has a dirtier mind? Someone who sees the naked form in a non-sexual context and find something sexual in it, or someone who sees it for what it is? Since none of the men are in an aroused state, I think it's clearly innocent.

That you get sick at the mere thought of someone being naked tells me that you have serious issues. People get naked all the time to bathe. Does that thought make you sick, too?

I too am from the US of A, by the way. Don't paint us all with the same brush.

reply

[–] ttornak 19 years ago

Massive nudity ? And I waited and waited and waited and... in a movie with Helena Bonham Carter, utterly dissapointing. Sadistic even !

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

I want to express my sincere apologies if I misled you about the massive nudity (If the truth be told, the producers hired me to add postings with very provocative subject titles to help spike the rental numbers for this little film. Is it working?). There's nothing worse than renting a movie expecting beautiful nubile young women and getting flopping penises instead.

reply

[–] liberalmedia 19 years ago

I always say that you know you're at a British movie when they give the nude scene to Ian Holm and not Helena Bonham Carter, and you know you're at an Irish movie if the sex scene occurs between a married or engaged couple. But perhaps that no longer applies these days!

Seriously, though, concerning contact-258's comments, I have to say that although I loved Room with a View and consequently rushed out to see Maurice, another Merchant-Ivory E.M. Forster adaptation, when it opened in New York City, I was extremely uncomfortable during RWAV's skinny dipping scene.

Don't get me wrong. I know it's all there in the book, and one shot is even composed to recall a painting of the Rhine Maidens (i.e., when the men are cavorting waist-high in the water), and that's all in the book, too.

But due to the generation I'm in and the fact that I was brought up on American films, a nude scene like that still shook me up during the 1980s. Nudity in American films was extremely limited, very seldom frontal, and of course pains were taken to display only the male backside, not the penis. At least that's how most of the films turned out. I was in college before I saw a film with frontal nudity (Thank you, Martin Scorsese).

Also, the skinny dipping scene involves a lot of frolicking and flapping in the breeze, as it were, for Simon Callow, Julian Sands, and Rupert Graves. This too is not par for the coures in American films, or at least it wasn't in the '80s.

On top of that, there is such overt sexual repression in the film (The Reverend Mr. Beebe, charming and affable or no, does Have Issues), and I wondered if the nakedness was prelude to some unexpected goings-on.

On top of that, there's the taboo of seeing a clergyman naked (I can't be the only person who thought of that), which is actually handled very sweetly, with Lucy Honeychurch giggling as Mr. Beebe climbs out of the swimming hole.

I should mention that I did live in Europe for a time, too, and realize that the European approach to nudity is entirely different, or at least it was when I was in my 20s. When I brought German fashion and beauty magazines to work, American co-workers obsessed over the nudity in them. I say obsessed and I mean obsessed. They leafed through them and stopped cold on the pages on skin care that featured naked models and would not stop talking about the nakedness.

Getting back to Room with a View, I loved the film, find no fault with the presentation of nudity, but don't expect people to be blase about it. So much depends on your culture, background, and approach to situations like that.

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

Take heart, my dear friend. I may be the only one to have this opinion. Judging from the responses, it appears I am the only person who thinks that parents should be warned if graphic nudity is in a movie. I shouldn't be surprised as I'm the only (former) Republican who seems offended by the idea that Bush uses torture, rape, and war as major tools of his foreign policy.

We would know that Bush was a Christian if he had read Matthew 5:9. It's obvious that he has not.

reply

[–] ttornak 19 years ago

I took the liberty of checking your favorite movies and I'm really confused now :-).

Loved your first answer as my post was a just a joke.

Firstly, as a European, the distinction between Republicans,Democrats and Liberal, are sketchy at best for me. And as a Belgian, I didn't support the war either. But that doesn't matter because our prime minister is a mental midget with the morals of a cat and the backbone of a rubber duck. But I'm off topic now.

I'm seldom or never disturbed by violence or sex/nudity onscreen but often surprised and sometimes disgusted when reading about the reaction of the public on those scenes (das boot, secret&lies, ...) . Not that I blame them, we're thaught it's all just entertainment anyway.

This movie holds romantic and liberal ideas dear. It presents these ideas in a sweet, melodramatic and sentimental story with the score (pucinni for god's sake ! :-) ) that underlines it all and make it all more a dream than a depiction of hard, cruel life. Considering the nature of the book (homosexuality is allready mentioned on these boards and the romantic idea about the love for nature/beauty of it), I do think these scenes were necessary. Skip them, and you have another movie.

To (finally) come to you're initial question. Maybe. You don't make it any easier by using the word 'massive'. It's not a children's movie, but then again, neither are most and if my children would be watching disney non-stop I'd have a serious talk with them (even if it's only Fantasia). In your case you may be required to view every movie before showing it to them but again this is NOT a children's movie. And considering the ideas presented in this movie, one scene of male nudity may become the least of your worries.

reply

[–] 19 years ago

[deleted]

[–] la-31 19 years ago

Contact~
I read through this thread and found most of the posters attacking you for the nudity scene pretty reactionary and bashing you to feel superior somehow (I leave aside the Bush/Iraq fiasco, which I also am against, as an American). In Europe, they seem to be more lackadaisical about showing their kids flopping penises. That's their prerogative, but in the U.S., it's different, and I thoroughly agree that it would be better to have warning of that. I also think that the scene, though shocking because it comes out of the blue, is not sexual in nature.

I'll add here that A Room with a View is one of my favorite films of all time, and I always mention to my religious friends (Muslim, not Christian) about that particular scene when recommending it. There are some adults even who don't like to see nudity in a film, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I always find it interesting how much people get attacked by others for having that preference. It bothers them that there may be people who follow a paradigm different from their own. How sad.

reply

[–] contact-258 19 years ago

Yeah!!! I finally got some support! Is it indicative how far the Christian world has fallen that a member of a non-Christian faith is the first to defend my position?! Thank You.

I agree that it is a very good film. I do like the free-thinking them of the movie. I just don't like blatant nudity as a general rule!

As far as Iraq goes, perhaps I am wrong in criticizing W here. After all, the Iraqis seem to be keeping the Americans busy and on the positive side, it keeps Bush from declaring war on places like Venezuela, Brazil, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, Vietnam [Hey, if we can fight two wars in Iraq, why not Vietnam?], Iran, Congo, France... Well, I think you get the idea. I don't think Christ was in favor of declaring war just because you think you are stronger than someone.

reply

[–] chantelvdveen 19 years ago

No you're not the only one to think that this is graphic nudity and shouldn't have even be put in the film. I think it's a great way to ruin a classic film.

reply

[–] crossing_lethe 19 years ago

I don't have much to add (about the movie, considering this really actually isn't the place for politics), but I'll post a little something anyway:

The nudity is very non-sexual. It's harmless, really, unless you're the kind of person who is uncomfortable with the idea of nudity. Children from about nine and up will pretty much know the basics of sex and genitalia, from the school yard if not their parents. Most children after the age of five know that boys and girls have different body parts, and probably know what they are. Children before the age of five or so will probably not really register the nudity to begin with. There's really not much to shelter them from in "A Room with a View". Considering all of the violence that children are exposed to that parents don't even think to censor (Give some good thought to the last children's movie you saw. Even "Dumbo" isn't harmless), I think a jovial scene of carefree nudity in a completely non-sexual way is the least of our worries. It's not like a piece of their childhood innocence is going to be striped away or anything.

On the bright side, though, I'm sure this experience has given us all a good example of why it's helpful to really research a film before showing it to children - you can't always tell what's inside at first glance. Reviews are always good, but will occasionally give away important plot points. http://www.kids-in-mind.com/ is a really great site to look up movies - they are extremely nitpicky with their ratings, which are put in three categories: Sex and nudity, violence and gore, and profanity. I remember one review that mentioned that a girl touched a man's face affectionately! The reviews are pretty clinical - they basically say that X happened, but not any of the context - so they don't seem to give away that much. I didn't see one for this movie, but if there was, it would probably say something like "Three men swim and run naked. Their penises and bums are shown."

reply

[–] kim-468 19 years ago

Thanks for the resource. Glad to know I'm not the only parent on the board who actually thinks it's just part of parenting to watch, or extensively research, any movie before my kids see it. I actually had to go back and think which scene this thread was about, since, aside from the humor, the whole thing was sorta water off a duck's back, to me. I'd much sooner let either my son or my daughter watch Room With a View (provided they could stay awake, which I quite seriously doubt -- who on earth would imagine that children would even <i>want</i> to watch an adaptation of E.M. Forster?), than watch some of the G and PG-rated stuff that's out there these days; one should never rely solely on the ratings system to do the hard work of deciding what's appropriate for one's own children. But in general, I also wouldn't tend to assume that NR meant "no bad stuff in the movie," as this is very frequently a red flag for naughty content of various sorts. As for this scene, people used to bathe outdoors in the buff all the time. And it was not always a solitary pursuit. Big whoop.

reply

[–] imperialvalleyjim 19 years ago

This thread has sparkled with occasional thoughtful comments. Parents need to know what their children are likely to face when watching any movie. I took a 14 year old to Schindler's list, but I knew what to expect and what she was capable of understanding. She is also the daughter of mine most likely to want to see Room...

But now she is older and has taken the stance that she will not watch any "R" rated movie, regardless of the reason. While I might disagree with her decision, she's an adult now and can make that choice. And that is the cruxt of the matter. Informed decision making.

What Contact first questioned was the lack of forwarning by the rating or lack thereof. I have seen "Room With a View" broadcast uneditted on PBS. Which is fine by me, if they had placed a notification of what to expect first. I don't find the nudity all that objectionable. My adult daughter would. There are homes in America that have a puritanical stance on nudity, sex, and even some on violence. I object to other people deciding what MY children may or may not view. And even object to people telling me what i may or may not view. I don't object to ratings and find myself objecting when something that would have been "R" rated in America is not rated.

I remember clearly that when the movie "MASH" came out, Robert Altman refused to make an edit the MPAA required for a "PG" rating, so it was released with an "X" rating, which was the formal MPAA "NR" of the day. Some newspapers would not advertise the film and some theaters would not show it. The studio finally had it re-rated by the MPAA and it was "R" on its original release run. And on VHS boxes it will show the original "R" rating. (Though I am now so old, I am unclear if it was an "M" for mature at the time or if they had finally gotten to "R".) A few years later it was re-rated yet again for another release in movie theaters and is now "PG". The brief nudity and one "F-bomb" no longer mean what they did.

Standards change all the time. "MASH" would probably be "PG-13" nowadays, but might get slapped with the "R" for the drug use, which wasn't as big an issue when it was rated for the second theatrical release in the 80's. So Contact will have to check "PG" nowadays, and may already object to some "PG" content - we've all seen "PG" movies with no redeeming values. Basically the whole ratings sysytem needs a big overhaul, and parents need to ever more vigilant.

reply